Employers could be pressured to hire more workers with a criminal background under recent guidelines issued by the federal government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions guidelines warn businesses about rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommend they eliminate policies that exclude people from employment based on a criminal record. The EEOC says civil rights laws already prohibit different treatment for job applicants who are of a different ethnic background but have identical criminal histories. The update was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison, according to the guideline report.

The update was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison, according to the guideline report.

First time some company sends an ex-con into my home to fix an appliance or tile a room - is the last time I do business with that company. Ever.

People who choose to prey on the innocent have obstacles to overcome. That process should not be done for them. And that crap about how they 'paid their debt' to society by sitting in a prison, doing drugs, watching cable TV, and being fed on the taxpayers dime is crap.

This horrible idea is a perverse incentive that will encourage crime. Wait, you'll see... Or look to Detroit where it's already happening and ask yourself if that's how you want your country to look..

7
posted on 02/24/2013 6:23:21 PM PST
by GOPJ
(To be free is to own one's risk - Jonathan Levy)

i guess any large gaps in employment will be considered "jail time" from now on and they will not get called for an interview, it will also force employers call EVERY previous employer they've had for the last ten to fifteen years from now on too... no answer/reply, no job

8
posted on 02/24/2013 6:29:04 PM PST
by Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)

Obama voters voted specifically for this. Do not let them off the hook. They voted for Benghazi, they voted for The Iranian bomb, they voted for the North Korean ICBM, and they voted for this. Remind them of it.

So I take it now that our esteemed betters in Washington will hire ex-cons for their interns?

LOL - they usually exempt themselves from the laws they pass... but in this case they already might have more than enough crooks in their ranks to satisfy any 'quota'. If this law passes companies that don't have enough ex-cons will have to pass over the qualified honest people in order to hire the losers. Wouldn't that be a great message to send to an honest hard working young person? "You didn't get the job because an ax murderer had the edge... and we have a quota to fill..."

21
posted on 02/24/2013 7:27:45 PM PST
by GOPJ
(To be free is to own one's risk - Jonathan Levy)

If the we ever have real conservatives controlling government again, one of the first budget cuts needs to be to the EEOC.

Either a person has value to a business or he doesn't. The market will sort out the rest. Unfortunately, the government provides no guarantee that a criminal has served his time. It is sort of shame that the EEOC is pushing their weight around when money spent on the EEOC could be spent of making criminals go straight and someday contribute to society. It would be good for the ex-con as well as society, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

You favor the government forcing me to hire smokers and now criminals. Is there any form of discrimination that you would allow an employer to engage in? Or should the government just pick and choose who I should hire?

I do believe that you are not a long time lurker looking for new FRiends, but just a Liberty hating troll.

BTW have you decided whether or not you are going to sue the employer for not hiring you because you smoke?

The next thing you will be advocating is the government prohibiting employers from discriminating against disgruntled employees who have sued their prior employers.

Am I right?

Should I forced to overlook the fact that you sued some other employer for some silly feel-good liberty robbing labor law violation?

27
posted on 02/24/2013 9:56:48 PM PST
by P-Marlowe
(There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)

Why should ex-criminals, EVEN petty criminals be denied employment after their time is served. I don’t know if you know this or not but a LOT of people that get out of jail want to do better with themselves, once they find out they can’t. They go back to crime to survive.

I would gladly hire an ex con to guard my home, or take care of my child, or safeguard my companies finances. They’ve paid their debt to society. Maybe they made one mistake. It shouldn’t haunt them for the rest of their lives.

“The update was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison.”

Employers shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against ANY prospective employees.

That's insane. It's their business, and employers should be able to sort prospective employees into classes: (1) unqualified, (2) fully qualified, (3) best qualified.

And they should be able to use criteria important to their business. If your smoking is going to cost that employee thousands more in health and lost time costs, then that employer has good reason to pick someone other than you who might even be slightly less qualified.

If it's right for the government to tell me how to run my business or there will be consequences, then it's also right for the government to tell you to quit smoking or there will be consequences. In other words, you are advocating big government controlling our personal and professional lives.

As a newbie you probably don't realize that long-time conservative Freepers protect this site from those who come across right away as liberal trolls. You have definitely walked that line wanting to sue over smoking and wanting to force companies to hire ex-convicts.

Thinking that a longtime Freeper is going to get zotted for calling you on this stuff is a pipe dream. It won't happen.

However....actual liberal trolls....they have a good shot at meeting the Viking Kitties.

36
posted on 02/25/2013 5:10:03 AM PST
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)

And the federal government fully promises to assist the employer with any lawsuits and monetary punishment the employer has to deal with when the convict he was ordered to hire robs, rapes, murders or causes any other mischief to co-workers or customers or the employers' place of business.

It's not a question of 'if they served their time'. Yeah, we're all thrilled these lowlifes got to sit in a place with free food, free medical care, workout rooms, easily available drugs and plenty of gang members to assist with rapes... Yeah, lots of pity going their way... Must be a rough environment for lowlifes - like being thrown in a Brier patch...

If someone proves themselves reliable then of course they should be hired. And there are people who turn their lives around. But it's also time to get real - most of these losers will stay the way they are or get worse. And it has nothing to do with someone 'giving' them anything. Or not 'giving' them something. It has to do with their choices. Most of them chose the 'easy unethical' way because they're lazy, stupid and mean. That's also why no one wants to hire them.

What's being offered is a new quota system. Let me explain because it's not being advertised as another quota system, but it is one...

Two people apply for a job - one is hard working, honest and has a great referencesfrom his previous job. The other person is a lowlife who has spent his life stealing, lying, and manipulating anyone he comes in contact with... He was arrested for stealing from his last boss and beating up his girlfriend and her illegitimate child... He's never worked a 'hard' month in his life because he's too good for hard work. You know the type Freedom - long on self-pity and excuses - short on truth and a work ethic...

Let's say the assh*les in Washington have passed the new quota law - and the company MUST hire the criminals. And not just one - not just one incompetent - not just one mean lowlife, but hundreds of them... Why hundreds? Because the company has to make up for all the years they've been hiring honest decent people...

So the honest hard working person doesn't get the job - and the criminal does... That's a reward. And an incentive. And a very perverse one at that...

There are ways to assist criminals without making a life of crime MORE profitable....

39
posted on 02/25/2013 7:01:16 AM PST
by GOPJ
(To be free is to own one's risk - Jonathan Levy)

Also I never favored FORCING YOU TO HIRE ANYONE. I just said these things should not be used in job consideration.

And who are you to judge? Do you own a business? Have you ever owned a business where you had to deal with employees?

Whether or not things should be used in job consideration is nobody's business except the owner of the business. You advocate laws which prohibit owners of businesses from picking and choosing employees based on their own individual criteria and instead you favor using THE POWER OF THE STATE to force that employer to overlook certain character flaws in potential employees, such as being stupid enough to smoke cigarettes or being stupid enough and evil enough to get convicted of a crime.

Youre obviously a paid shill.

And who is paying me to shill? What, do you think I'm being paid by the tobacco lobby (which managed to get the law on the books prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis that a person smokes)?

Demeaning other conservatives with your closed-mindedness.

Ah Ha! You think because I am advocating for the liberty of employers and for Constitutional limited government that I am closed minded and that you, who are here advocating nanny state laws designed to give special employment rights to smokers and drug dealers and embezzelers and other morally bankrupt job applicants, are somehow an open minded "CONSERVATIVE"?

LOL!

Since you have been on this forum you have advocated for laws that restrict an individual from exercising whatever discretion they want in picking and choosing whom they will put on their payroll. You have yet to post even one post on this forum where you advocate anything other than a Nanny State agenda.

I dont advocate government control of anything, yet if it HAS TO BE THAT WAY, you still have to follow the law.

And when they pass a law taking away your Liberty instead of granting you someone else's liberty are you going to obey the law?

When they come to take away your guns are you going to comply with the law?

When they force you to take wedding pictures at a gay wedding, are you going to comply with the law?

When they tell you that in order to work at a hospital, you have to be certified as an abortionist, are you going to comply with that law?

You have not established your conservative credentials on this forum yet. So far you have established only that you are a whiny knee jerk Nanny Stater who advocates for laws restricting the rights of employers to hire or fire who they want for whatever reason they want.

I suspect you would also advocate for safer guns and safer bullets, higher minimum wage laws, forced health coverage for employees; prohibitions against discriminating against gays, atheists, people with tattoos on their faces, people with rings in the noses, cross dressers, pathological liars, people with criminal records, people who file lawsuits against their prior employers.... the list goes on.

And you call yourself a conservative?

Tell me what single conservative position have you espoused since you signed up for Free Republic.

40
posted on 02/25/2013 8:07:48 AM PST
by P-Marlowe
(There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)

Fired because www.freerepublic.com was on your web history.
Fired because company finds out you own guns.
Fired because you are a registered republican.
Fired because you were trained in the military, and they don’t want dangerous people around.
Fired because you had a drink at a bar after work.

Do you becoming angry, or write them a letter telling them how great it is that they preserve Liberty?

I am not a troll, and you did not post the rest of quote.

I came here to learn, and you shun me away. I came here on no ones accord but my own, and am a frequent visitor of the site.

All you have to do is look at this ridiculous law forcing employers to hire convicts, to see my point.

Cannot discriminate against gays. But can discriminate against smokers.

I’m just angry because I have been looking for work for a long time, eating macaroni and cheese and top ramen for months, I would have had a job, but NO because I’m a smoker. It didn’t have anything to do with insurance purposes or anything like that. I even told them I would not smoke on the job during breaks or lunches, or come to work smelling like cigarettes. Nope, I still smoke cigarettes. Made me very very angry, and I’m very stressed.

I don’t want pity, I also don’t want to be labelled a Liberal troll, I might vomit.

Im just angry because I have been looking for work for a long time, eating macaroni and cheese and top ramen for months, I would have had a job, but NO because Im a smoker.

Look, I don't know why you can't seem to find a job. I don't know how old you are, what your professional qualifications are or why you are currently unemployed. From your postings here you seem to be a very confused person who claims to believe in Liberty and yet who is convinced that someone else's private exercise of Liberty in discriminating against you because you smoke is somehow taking away your liberty to smoke.

No, my FRiend, you are still allowed to smoke in this nanny state and people who don't like it are pretty much at liberty to avoid hanging around you or liking you or thinking that you are a damn fool for continuing in a habit that will someday result in your either dying of cancer or drowning in your own mucous in a hopsice because your lungs are so filled with scar tissue that you can't cough it out.

You came on this thread announcing to the Freepers that you didn't think an employer has the right to discriminate against anyone. Those were your words. You seem to have backtracked from those words which means to me that you have a tendency to speak or type before you engage your brain. My guess is that this is probably the reason why you haven't been able to get employment. Either that or you are not qualified for the position for which you are applying. Probably both.

I gave you a word of advice early on. I suggested that you write the company that didn't hire you and tell them you understand their reluctance to hire someone who smoked and to thank then for having standards and that if you ever were able to stop smoking that you would consider it an honor to work for them.

You ignored my advice and suggested that maybe you would sue the employer. I advised you that that would be the worst career move of your life. I don't see that you have taken that advice.

You might want to go back in your own employment history and see whether or not there is some stain on your record that you managed to get posted somewhere. Perhaps you filed a labor lawsuit against a prior employer before. Perhaps you filed an injury claim for some bogus injury, hired an attorney and cost one of your employers an arm and a leg more than they ever paid you. These lawsuits are public records and any prospective employer can look them up and then come up with some other reason not to hire you.

My advice is to stop complaining about the people that won't hire you and come up with some really good reasons why someone in the position to hire you should hire you. If they suspect that you are going to be trouble, they are not going to hire you. If they think they can make a lot of money by putting you on the payroll, then you would already have a job by now.

Stop looking for laws that will force an employer to hire you. Start looking for solid economic reasons why an employer will profit from hiring you and if you can convince them of that, they will overlook the little flaws such as your compulsion to kill yourself or waste time and money injesting polluted air.

47
posted on 02/25/2013 10:04:44 AM PST
by P-Marlowe
(There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)

“Why should ex-criminals, EVEN petty criminals be denied employment after their time is served. I dont know if you know this or not but a LOT of people that get out of jail want to do better with themselves, once they find out they cant. They go back to crime to survive.

I would gladly hire an ex con to guard my home, or take care of my child, or safeguard my companies finances. Theyve paid their debt to society. Maybe they made one mistake. It shouldnt haunt them for the rest of their lives.”

Like I said, it’s your choice; YOU hire that person.

It’s also MY choice; I WON’T hire that person.

You probably are in favor of taking my power to choose away from me, but, so far, it’s still a free country!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.